----- Original Message ----- From: Matt Davey Time: 18-11-08 11:30 As a matter of fact, I did the sync with all my current data. And as far as I can see, I don't spot any duplicates. The record I made for testing was a new one however.Hi Tom, On Mon, 2008-11-17 at 22:42 +0100, Tom Billiet wrote:Hi Matt, It took me a long time to get it tested. First because of a lack of time, and secondly because I took my z22 for a ride in the washing machine. It takes an awful long time to get the water out of the touchscreen, but magically everything seems to be working, and it still had all my data. Actually I must say I was quite surprised it survived it :-)That is good news indeed. Nice surprise!Anyway, I got now to testing it. I applied your patch against the svn version of evolution and e-d-s from today, and it compiles fine (on archlinux). It also tried 1. and 2. you mentioned, and it seems to be working ok. I'm not sure how to test the other points. So the basic testing I've done looks fine. It's good to see some bugs to get solved.Many thanks for the testing. Did you sync with a previously synced device+addressbook? I suspect there's a possibility that all (or many) addresses could get duplicated on first syncing with the new logic, because the desktop will now "package" an address in a slightly different way (basically, I've aimed to avoid re-ordering fields on the pilot as much as possible). Also, I've configured the address conduit only to copy from my pda to evolution. As otherwise the new os5 fields will be overwritten as soon as I make a change in evolution. So I only make changes in my pda. I hope you get your fixes submitted.I'm having a bit of a job persuading the Evolution maintainers to commit the e-d-s part of the patch (see bug 556061: http://bugzilla.gnome.org/show_bug.cgi?id=556061 ) as my fix for the reordering problems could change behaviour that is being relied upon by other workarounds. Unfortunately, without the changes on the e-d-s side I can't fix the pilot bugs. Hopefully it's just a case of getting consensus that a) there are bad bugs b) they need to be solved at the e-d-s layer and not worked around elsewhere and c) if we miss any cases elsewhere we can address them as they are identified. Part of the problem is the lack (to my knowledge) of any regression test suite for evolution. It's a complex beast, and it's all too easy to introduce bugs when trying to fix other ones. You're welcome,Thanks again, Tom, Matt Tom Btw: my email address has changed, so do not try to contact me anymore on my old address, I won't receive your mails. Kind regards, Tom ----- Original Message ----- From: Matt Davey Time: 05-10-08 23:52Dear code monkeys, I'm attaching two patches, one for evolution-data-server and one for evolution. Together, they seem to fix some pretty bad bugs in the address conduit. I would appreciate it if anyone out there was willing to test these patches (Tom, Nathan?). The diffs are against Evolution branch 2.24 as the trunk would require me to upgrade my glib and a bunch of other stuff, or build from gargnome, neither of which I fancy just now. 2.24 was only branched a couple of weeks ago, so it is pretty up to date. I haven't yet attempted any support for the new Contact fields. This patch is just to fix existing addressbook bugs. The sync logic, particularly for the phone and email fields has changed considerably. Bugs I've tried to fix: 1. The 'first-name / family-name' split on the palm was not respected when writing to the desktop. It went via 'full_name'. See bug #269342 for some more info. (aside: IMO Evo full_name munging is far too fragile to be worth using and I wish they'd get rid of it. It's never going to reliably separate first/last names when challenged by, say "Mary Anne Bloggs" and "John Mc Neill") 2. If you erased a phone field on the Palm, it wouldn't be erased on the desktop. 3. The 'OTHER' phone fields were broken in various ways. This is actually already fixed on the 2.24 branch (and trunk) since revision 9380 (see bug #547223) 4. There were many ways for phone fields to be re-ordered. I've tried to avoid this wherever possible. 5. Evolution was careless about ordering of multiple email/phone entries in the vcard. For example, if you imported a 'vcard' with 3 emails, and then saved it immediately, you would find the 3 entries would be reversed. This sort of thing could upset the palm. 6. If you had an entry on both desktop and palm, and say you had three phone numbers labelled 'home' on the palm. Then that entry could be deleted if you changed the desktop record and synced again. I will probably have to break down the patch into a few components before submitting to the Evolution maintainers, but I'd appreciate it if anyone was able to do some testing or take a look over the changes in the meantime. Thanks, Matt Matt Davey I like to browse in occult bookshops if for no other reason than mcdavey mrao cam ac uk to refresh my commitment to science. -- Heinz Pagels_______________________________________________ gnome-pilot-list mailing list gnome-pilot-list gnome org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/gnome-pilot-listMatt Davey To err is human, to moo bovine. mcdavey mrao cam ac uk _______________________________________________ gnome-pilot-list mailing list gnome-pilot-list gnome org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/gnome-pilot-list |